Now Accepting New Clients!



Appellant and his ex-wife, Appellee, divorced in 1994. The consent judgment of divorce ordered Appellant to pay child support for his two children. In 2001, Appellant pleaded guilty to several criminal offenses and was sentenced to 6 to 15 years’ imprisonment. At the time of his incarceration, Appellant owed $29,455 in accrued child support. In July 2015, Appellant wrote to the FOC to explain that he had been in prison since 2001, planned to apply for disability benefits when he was released, and did not anticipate being able to pay the sizable child support arrearage, which then totaled nearly $90,000. On March 17, 2016, the FOC responded to Spencer’s letter, indicating that the FOC reviewed his case and planned to close it. In pertinent part, the FOC’s letter said, “Your account will be adjusted to reflect a zero balance and your case will be closed.” Three days later, the FOC sent a second letter indicating that the case would be closed in 60 days. However, on or about May 16, 2016, the FOC sent Appellant a third letter to advise him that “the previous arrearages were added back to the case” at Appellee’s request in light of Appellant’s impending release from prison. In February 2017, the FOC obtained a show-cause order in the divorce case requiring Appellant to appear before the court to explain why he should not be held in contempt for failing to satisfy his child support obligation. Most significantly for purposes of this appeal, Appellant maintained that the FOC’s March 17, 2016 correspondence constituted a release of his child support obligation that could not be unilaterally rescinded absent fraud or mutual mistake. Appellant also argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the child support order because his arrearage had been lawfully released by the FOC. In July 2017, the trial court entered an order retroactively abating Spencer’s child support beginning May 29, 2007, because Appellant “notified the Friend of the Court of his incarceration at that time but no action was taken by the Friend of the Court to abate support pursuant to statute.” Over two years later, the trial court entered an order finding Appellant in contempt for failure to exercise due diligence in paying all or some of his child support arrearage, which was $75,879.10 in accrued child support.


Appellant first contends that he was denied due process by the FOC’s failure to comply with MCL 552.517 addressing periodic review of support orders. We disagree because Appellant failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief. An issue is generally preserved for appeal if it was raised in or decided by the trial court. This issue is unpreserved because Appellant did not challenge the validity of the support order below on the basis of the FOC’s noncompliance with its statutory review duty. Irrespective of any obligation imposed on FOC by MCL 552.517(1)(f)(v)(B), when Appellant challenged the FOC’s attempts to collect the outstanding child support arrearage in 2017, a referee acknowledged that the FOC was notified of Spencer’s incarceration on May 29, 2007, and “did not suspend child support during [Spencer’s] incarceration pursuant to statute.” The referee therefore recommended that the trial court suspend Spencer’s child support obligation from May 29, 2007, until the youngest child turned 18 years old. On July 5, 2017, the trial court accepted the referee’s recommendation and retroactively abated Spencer’s support obligation beginning May 29, 2007. Because the retroactive abatement was made effective before the FOC was required by statute to review and petition the court for modification, the trial court already remedied any harm arising from the FOC’s noncompliance with any statutory duty in 2007. Thus, we need not address the due process challenge, and Appellant is not entitled to further relief.


Next, Appellant argues that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the FOC released the “judgment lien obligation” on March 17, 2016, and could not unilaterally rescind the release. Appellant contends that no court has addressed the merits of this jurisdictional challenge arising from the FOC’s purported release, so neither collateral estoppel nor res judicata bar resolution of this issue. “We review de novo as a question of law whether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim.” Appellant does not identify a constitutional provision, statute, or court rule that grants exclusive jurisdiction to another court or tribunal and, instead, argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the child support order because the FOC purportedly released the outstanding arrearage. Appellant’s position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of subject-matter jurisdiction, which “refers to a court’s power to act and authority to hear and determine a case.” Pursuant to MCL 600.1021, “the family division of circuit court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over” certain cases, including “[c]ases of divorce and ancillary matters as set forth in” the Friend of the Court Act and the Support and Parenting Time Enforcement Act. MCL 600.1021(1)(a)(v) and (viii). A court is not divested of subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis of facts germane to the particular case before it. Thus, the trial court’s jurisdiction could not be divested by the execution of a release. Furthermore, Appellant’s consistent reliance on the FOC’s “release” as a defense to enforcement of his child support arrearage is without merit. The consent judgment of divorce provided that Appellant would pay Appellee, through the FOC, specified sums for the support of their minor children. While the FOC may have been responsible for processing Appellant’s payments, the debt arising from Appellant’s child support obligation was clearly owed to Appellee. The Friend of the Court Act recognizes this distinction by providing that “closure of a friend of the court case does not release a party from the party’s obligations imposed in the underlying domestic relations matter.” MCL 552.505a(5). The FOC simply did not have authority to release Appellant from his obligation to pay the child support owed to Appellee.


Aldrich Legal Services understands what a stressful time this is for you when you have child support issues.

Aldrich Legal Services represent parents throughout southeast Michigan with a wide range of family law related matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new law regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000